Mr. Speaker, I think that we were quite clear during the election campaign on the fact that we wanted to bring more fairness to our tax system in areas where such fairness is lacking. That is why we made proposals and listened to the reactions of Canadians across the country, and to our caucus as well, to be sure that we are getting this right. That is what we are getting ready to announce to Canadians this week.

Mr. Speaker, two years ago the Minister of Transport said that rail safety was his top priority. Two years later, that does not appear to be the case. Lac-Mégantic still does not have a bypass, the rail infrastructure in many communities looks like it dates back to the 19th century, and ticking time bombs are rolling through our streets, our lands, along our rivers, and in our towns and cities.

Is the minister asleep at the switch? Is he waiting for another tragedy before he changes the rules surrounding transportation safety?

Mr. Speaker, as members know, rail safety is my top priority. Of course our sympathy and thoughts are with the victims of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. We have been working very hard since that time to bring in measures to make rail transportation safer. With regard to Lac-Mégantic, we are working with the Province of Quebec and the Town of Lac-Mégantic to come up with a solution. I can assure the House that we will find a solution.

Qujannamiik uqaqti. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indigenous Services. The government has split Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and designated a minister of indigenous crown relations and northern affairs and a minister of indigenous services. While touring my riding, I heard concerns that this decision will only add another layer of bureaucracy and make it even more difficult to deliver on pressing issues like Nunavut's suicide rate and the lack of mental health services.

How will the split of the department help solve these and other issues that Nunavummiut currently face?

Don RusnakLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to a renewed relationship with indigenous people. We have listened to ARCAP's recommendation to simultaneously improve the delivery of services while accelerating a move to self-determination for indigenous people. We have committed $187 million toward community-based health programs in Nunavut, and the Inuit crown partnership committee will help guide our actions on shared priorities.

We must continue to address the day-to-day realities in Nunavut and all indigenous communities while building a path toward reconciliation and systematic change.

Jean RiouxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 109, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's official response to the sixth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence entitled, “The Readiness of Canada's Naval Forces", tabled in the House of Commons on June 15, 2017.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-46, an act to amend the Criminal Code (offences relating to conveyances) and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of reconciliation, it is an honour for me to introduce my bill that seeks to turn national indigenous people day into a statutory holiday. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission report stated, “Reconciliation is not an Aboriginal problem; it is a Canadian one. Virtually all aspects of Canadian society may need to be reconsidered.” My bill seeks to offer an opportunity to all Canadians and all government and community levels to reflect on concrete actions for reconciliation and recognition of first nations, Métis, and Inuit, their history, their rights, their cultures, and their languages.

June 21 would be a day to reflect on treaty relationships and the legacy of residential schools that continue to be a heavy weight on indigenous peoples. I look forward to getting my bill passed in the House.

Mr. Speaker, even though VIA Rail is a crown corporation, it was given no clear mandate by the federal government. This lack of a long-term plan and direction has had adverse consequences for many Canadians. For instance, VIA can unilaterally end service on a given route without Parliament's approval, which affects thousands of people, especially in remote regions, yet Canadians should have the right to the highest levels of service, protection, and accessibility of travel that can be provided.

Therefore, I am pleased today to introduce a bill that would establish a mandate for VIA Rail. This bill would make it mandatory for VIA to offer minimum services, specified frequencies for those services and would require VIA to increase its level of service with regard to punctuality, and, very importantly, make VIA Rail's decisions to cancel services or close stations subject to approval by Parliament. Canadians must be able to rely on VIA's passenger rail service, which is an economic driver for many regions, but that economic benefit is dependent upon VIA's reliability and efficiency. Moreover, increasing rail travel has the great advantage of reducing environmental and financial costs.

It should be stressed that this bill follows on the great work of former MP for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Philip Toone, and an extensive consultation with stakeholders. I would be remiss if I did not thank Mr. Chris West and Mr. Greg Gormick of All Aboard St. Mary's for their invaluable assistance.

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities that, during its consideration of Bill C-48, An Act respecting the regulation of vessels that transport crude oil or persistent oil to or from ports or marine installations located along British Columbia’s north coast, the Committee be granted the power to travel throughout Canada to hear testimony from interested parties and that the necessary staff do accompany the Committee, provided that the travel does not exceed 45 sitting days.

Mr. Speaker, it is as always a pleasure to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Chilliwack—Hope.

We are going to speak a bit this afternoon to Bill C-48, the proposed oil tanker moratorium act, which the government does not actually want us to talk about. The government moved closure and cut off debate after only two official opposition members had an opportunity to speak to it. They used what the member for New Westminster—Burnaby calls the parliamentary “guillotine” to cut off debate on a bill that is important to people in our caucus and the people we represent.

People all across the country have different views on Bill C-48, but they were not allowed to be heard, so we are going to give them a voice here today in the House by debating this motion to have the committee travel.

Even though the government does not want to hear from the representatives of the people of Canada, we want that committee to go across Canada to talk about this legislation and to the people who will be most impacted by it. That could mean going to Calgary to talk to people who have seen their livelihoods ripped away from them, aided and abetted quite frankly by government policy that is punishing the energy sector. We saw today on the news that the vacancy rate in Calgary office towers is still near 30%. It is a tragedy that the Liberal government has ignored, but we will not let it ignore it. That is why we will be talking about this here in the House today.

The committee could go to northern British Columbia, where members could talk to the aboriginal equity partners, a group of 31 first nations and Métis communities that signed on to be a 33% partner in the northern gateway pipeline project that was killed by the government for no reason other than it went through a forest the Prime Minister liked. This was a completely arbitrary political decision not based on evidence, not based on science, but on the political whims of the Prime Minister and his friends in the PMO.

What did that decision do? It stole $2 billion of prosperity from aboriginal communities in northern B.C. and northern Alberta, which have no other prospect of economic development. They were going to be for the first-time owners of a major trans-provincial pipeline. They were going to have a stake in that, and the Liberal government took it away. Not only did the government take away the prosperity that would have resulted from that project, but took it away for every project that might cross northern British Columbia for the rest of time, by making this oil tanker moratorium come into effect.

The government never talks about how the aboriginal equity partners supported this responsible resource development project, which was approved using the exact same rules this government used to approve the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. The Liberals talk about what a great decision that was. They brag about it when they are in Houston. They brag about it when they are in Calgary. They do not come to B.C. and talk about it very much because Liberal members are afraid of the backlash they will receive, but they used the exact same process for the northern gateway pipeline as the Trans Mountain pipeline, but again, this one went through a forest that the Prime Minister might have hiked in a couple of times and he did not want it to go there.

What did that do? I am going to read into the record a statement by the aboriginal equity partner stewards, Bruce Dumont, the past president of the Métis Nation British Columbia; David McPhee, president of the Aseniwuche Wienwak Nation; Chief Elmer Derrick, Gitxsan Nation hereditary chief; and Elmer Ghostkeeper of the Buffalo Lake Métis Settlement, who said:

We are profoundly shocked and disappointed by the news that the Federal Government has no intention of pursuing any further consultation and dialogue with our communities on the important issue of the Northern Gateway Project. We are also deeply disappointed that a Prime Minister who campaigned on a promise of reconciliation with Indigenous communities would now blatantly choose to deny our 31 First Nations and Métis communities of our constitutionally protected right to economic development. We see today's announcement as clear evidence of their unwillingness to follow through on his promise.

The Government of Canada could have demonstrated its commitment by working with us as environmental stewards of the land and water to enhance marine safety. All 31 AEP plus the other affected communities should have been consulted directly and individually in order to meet the Federal Government's duty to consult.

The North Coast tanker moratorium will eliminate significant financial and social benefits committed to our communities through our ownership and participation in the Project.

It is time for governments to stop politicizing projects which take place on our lands - especially projects that are owned by Indigenous peoples.

The Aboriginal Equity Partners is a unique and historic partnership that establishes a new model for conducting natural resource development on our lands and traditional territories. We are owners of Northern Gateway and are participating in the project as equals.

The economic benefits from Northern Gateway to Indigenous communities are unprecedented in Canadian history. As part of the opportunity to share up to 33% ownership and control in a major Canadian energy infrastructure project, the project's Aboriginal Equity Partners will also receive $2 billion in long-term economic, business, and education opportunities for their communities.

Our goal is for Northern Gateway to help our young people to have a future where they can stay in their communities with training and work opportunities. We remain committed to Northern Gateway and the opportunities and responsibilities that come with our ownership. We also remain committed to working with our partners to ensure our environment is protected for future generations.

AEP will now consult with our member communities to determine our next steps.

We have never heard that from the government. The Liberals shut down debate on Bill C-48 so we could not hear it again. The Liberals do not want people to understand the damage they would do to aboriginal economic prospects, to aboriginal prosperity, by shutting down tanker traffic in just one region of the country. The health and prosperity of those communities would be put at risk. We notice this does not apply anywhere else in the country. For Venezuelan tankers coming up the St. Lawrence Seaway, no problem. For Algerian tankers coming in to New Brunswick, it is all good. For U.S. tankers coming in to the Port of Vancouver, no problem. It is only when Canadian tankers might take Canadian oil to sell abroad that there is a problem, that we then have to shut down an entire region to economic development. There is more aboriginal support for responsible resource development and more opposition to this very bill, Bill C-48, that the government does not want us to debate here in this chamber.

Here is a statement on the federal tanker ban legislation by the chief's council of the Eagle Spirit energy project:

As Chiefs from British Columbia and Alberta we are very disappointed with the inappropriate actions taken today by [the] Prime Minister...and the Federal Government by introducing a tanker ban on Canada's west coast. We feel strongly that a blanket tanker moratorium is not the answer. Once again, government and international environmental lobby groups want to make decisions for our communities instead of us letting us make them.

The Government of Canada should accept the analysis of affected coastal First Nations rather than put in place a blanket Tanker Moratorium, especially for First Nations led projects. We believe a First Nations process should be implemented to help determine what resource projects can be developed on our lands and what products can be shipped off of our coast lines.

To be clear; there has been insufficient consultation for the proposed Tanker Moratorium and it does not have our consent. As Indigenous peoples, we want to preserve the right to determine the types of activities that take place in our territories and do not accept that the federal government should tell us how to preserve, protect, and work within our traditional territories.

[The Prime Minister] committed to support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which combined with Section 35 of the Constitution means that the Government of Canada has a commitment to achieve free, prior and informed consent of Aboriginal groups in several instances, including for the approval of any projects affecting Aboriginal lands or territories. We will not support projects that endanger our communities and the environment; however, we do believe environmental protection and responsible economic development is possible. This ill-conceived legislation puts the prosperity and the future of our people, particularly our youth, in jeopardy.

Once again the federal government is not respecting nation-to-nation dialogue and consultation and is forging ahead on proposals without the consent of many Indigenous communities. We urge the Prime Minister to live up to the commitments he has made to Indigenous Peoples. The Chief's Council will continue to study this legislation and our options and will have more to say in the days to come.

Again, these are indigenous groups who stand to benefit from responsible resource development on their traditional territories, first nations-led projects. However, the Liberals saw no need to consult with them. They only want to consult with people who agree with their point of view. We have seen that time and time again, and we saw it again in this House. When they did not agree with our point of view as the official opposition, they shut down the debate all together. After only two opposition speakers, they cut off the debate and said this would be better studied in committee, as though the 96 members of Parliament represented in our caucus have no value here. What we saw is the breaking of another promise.

In their throne speech of December 4, 2015, entitled “Making Real Change Happen”, the Liberals said the following on page 1:

Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced. Parliament shall be no exception.

In this Parliament, all members will be honoured, respected and heard, wherever they sit. For here, in these chambers, the voices of all Canadians matter.

Once again, that was a broken promise. They obviously did not mean it. That did not last very long.

We want to be heard on Bill C-48, on this tanker ban moratorium, and we want to be heard because of the people this impacts. The Liberals just want to pat themselves on the back and say they did not need to consult with Aboriginal Equity Partners or with Eagle Spirit Energy group. They did not need to consult with them because they had heard enough. They heard what they wanted to hear, so then they stopped listening. That is what they are doing again today. That is what they have done throughout this Parliament. They simply say that they know best and only consult with groups that are going to tell them what they want to hear.

That is why, when I was the shadow minister for natural resources, I asked, through Order Paper Question No. 786, for the government to detail the consultations they had between October 19, 2015 and November 26, 2016, the date they announced they were killing northern gateway. I asked them to include a list of the dates that they met, the location where they met, the first nation and Métis communities present at those meetings, the cost of each meeting, and the summary for each meeting. That was to make sure that they had fulfilled their duty to consult with those groups. What did I get back? In short, I got back that the Government of Canada was not required to undertake those consultations with indigenous groups because they determined it did not impact their section 35 rights. I would say that the aboriginal communities that I have read these letters from certainly feel that their section 35 rights have been impacted, yet the Liberal government does not want to hear from them.

Closure has been forced. They slammed the door on further debate at second reading and sent it off to committee. We say that the committee should travel to hear from Canadians. If they do not want to hear from the representatives of Canadians, which they obviously do not and have made that clear, then maybe we should go from coast to coast to hear from those Canadians who would be directly impacted. They could also talk about the impact they have had, not only on the west coast but on the east coast as well. There has been deafening silence from the 32 Liberal members of Parliament who represent the Atlantic provinces after the actions of the Liberal government helped to kill the energy east project.

The Liberals want us to believe that the spot price of oil on any given day determines the outcome of a 50-year, $55-billion project. That is crazy to think that the spot price today can impact the decision for energy east. Former employees who worked on that project have made it clear that it was the government's interference, the changing regulatory regime, the constant moving of the goalposts, and the shutting down of the review process and restarting it again that caused energy east to back away and give up the $1 billion they had already sunk into the project. They said they were done, that they knew under the Liberal government they could not get this project built.

We saw Liberal politicians dancing on the graves of those energy worker jobs. We saw Denis Coderre celebrating and taking credit for it. Did we see any push-back from the government when that project that would represent 15,000 construction jobs, that would represent $55 billion in GDP to this country, which would have displaced foreign oil from conflict regions of the world, was killed by this regulatory burden? Did we see any push-back?

We saw the government hilariously trying to blame Stephen Harper. That was a new one. Apparently Stephen Harper was not in favour of energy east. I do not quite understand. It blamed Stephen Harper for its killing of energy east. It blamed the spot price of oil, as if TransCanada, the same company that is still building the Keystone XL pipeline, had suddenly decided that the spot price of oil is where it is and it could not build pipelines anymore. TransCanada is still building pipelines. It is building them now in the U.S.

It is like all of the major energy projects that have fled the country or have been cancelled since the government took office. These companies have not left the oil and gas sector, they have left Canada because of the regulatory burden and uncertainty that has been created by the government.

We say that we should go across the country. We should send the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities across the country to hear from Canadians. Even though the Liberals do not want to hear from their representatives here in the House, we want to hear from them. We know there is not universal acceptance of this. We know that the energy sector has suffered in the last two years because of the uncertainty that has been created by the government's regulatory processes. We should go across the country and talk to energy workers in Alberta, in Fort McMurray, on the west coast of British Columbia, and to the east coast folks, who now see their job prospects evaporating thanks to the work of the government.

Again I am reminded of how different the government's actions are from its rhetoric, how every time there was time allocation under the previous government, the members, who are no doubt going to stand up and ask me questions here, would get up and rail about what a horrible thing this was, how this was a deadening of democracy, a terrible precedent, and how they would never do this.

The Liberals did it on the only bill that we told them we wanted to have a substantial debate. We have had five or six bills that the Liberals have passed already in the first three weeks of this Parliament. However, instead of taking that as a good faith gesture, the Liberals telegraphed that they were going to use time allocation this fall, and they have been true to their word on that. That is about the only thing they have kept their promise on, that they were going to limit our debate opportunities.

We have said again and again that we wanted this to be a substantial debate. We had significant interest in our caucus in it. What did the Liberals do? They used the occasion of the Governor General's installation, a half-day Monday, and counted it as one of the days of debate. Then, on a Wednesday, after they invoked a bunch of procedural manoeuvres to cut the day off, we had one eight-minute speech. There were two full speeches and an eight-minute speech at second reading, and that was good enough for the government. It had heard all it needed to hear.

This is, again, what the Liberal government is all about. It wants an audience; it does not want an opposition. When it fears that it might hear something it does not like, the Liberals cut off the consultation process. It cuts off debate in this House.

Canadians are growing tired of it. We are seeing that. We certainly saw it during the small business proposals that the government tried to ram through, which it was unsuccessful at due to the good work of the opposition and business groups across the country.

We are not going to let them do it on Bill C-48. We think the committee should travel across the country to hear the voices of Canadians, even if the government does not want to hear from them.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Gatineau
Québec

Liberal

Steven MacKinnonLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was part of a government that invoked closure in this place over 100 times. This is not someone I think should be giving lessons on consultation.

I oversee the translation bureau as part of my job as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. We have gone from 28,000-million words translated from consultations in the previous government's era to over 60,000-million words that have been translated in parliamentary committees. That will give some sort of indication of the depth, the level, the breadth of the consultations that the government has undertaken, including, I might add, on resource issues and the kinds of issues that the member was talking about.

Would the member join us in celebrating the government's commitment to consultation, a commitment to having parliamentarians travel across the country, talking to their constituents, and working on policies that favour middle-class Canadians?

Mr. Speaker, the member gets a gold star for working middle-class Canadians into his question. However, I again quote from page 1 of the Liberal throne speech on December 4, 2015, which states, “Canada succeeds in large part because here, diverse perspectives and different opinions are celebrated, not silenced.” They are only celebrated if they are the same as the Liberals' preconceived notions. That is the only time they celebrate diversity and different opinions. We can have different opinions as long as they are the same as the Liberals'. They say diversity is our strength as long as they are the same as we are.

Conservatives have a different opinion on Bill C-48, and again and again the government takes away an ability of the representatives of the people to speak. We are temporary occupants here, but we are each sent here to represent about 100,000 people. When Liberals prevent us from sharing the points of view of the people who sent us here, they are not depriving Conservatives of their right to speak, which is what they think they are doing—they think this is just a partisan game—they are depriving the people of Chilliwack—Hope, and all constituents, the right to be heard. This is the House of Commons. It should be respected, and it is time that Liberals started to do it.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the last election, a Liberal candidate, now the Minister of Democratic Institutions, tweeted, “It's time to landlock Alberta's tar sands.” She deleted that tweet, and I guess after she did, there was some controversy around it. We were supposed to assume that she had changed her mind somehow because the tweet was deleted. The reality is that the government is putting into action precisely the program articulated in that tweet by the Minister of Democratic Institutions. She said, “It's time to landlock Alberta's tar sands.” Now the government is effectively directly killing the new pipeline west, and, indirectly, through impossible regulatory hurdles, killing the pipeline east.

Can the member comment on the fact that although the government would like to cover this up with all kinds of doublespeak about reviews and extra processes, the reality is that one member of the cabinet said what she wanted to do, and now it is doing it?

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the member. As I said last week, the Liberal plan to halt energy east has finally worked. Liberals worked very hard to make sure that energy east would never proceed. They worked very hard to ensure that the northern gateway pipeline was cancelled. They did nothing to support the Keystone XL pipeline until Donald Trump was elected, and then they suddenly realized they had better get to that. During the bromance between the Prime Minister and Barack Obama, there was not a word about Keystone XL, about promoting Canadian energy. In fact, Liberals left the natural resources minister behind when they had the state dinner in Washington. There was no room for him on the plane because of the Liberal fundraisers and family members of the Prime Minister. That shows the priority that Liberals place on our natural resource workers.

This is happening exactly as Liberals want it to, with projects being killed. Former Liberal minister Denis Coderre celebrated and toasted himself and other Liberals for having killed the energy east project and took credit for it. No one on that side countered that. They are all celebrating with him.

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Chilliwack—Hope that it is most unfortunate when important bills have closure on debate. That is the only point with which I agree with him.

I am dismayed by the political willingness to try to claim credit or score partisan points for a business decision, TransCanada's decision. I think it was well explained by Andrew Leach, associate professor, School of Business, University of Alberta, who pointed out quite clearly that what we have is a declining price for bitumen. It is a product that is expensive to produce but gets a low price on the market, because it is a solid. It is not even synthetic crude. It cannot go into a refinery until it is upgraded. Personally, and on behalf of the Green Party, we think that exporting raw bitumen to other countries for upgrading and refining is a loss for Canadian jobs. In that we are supported by the largest unions in northern Alberta.

However, I put to the member that with regard to the analysis that claims that this is somehow a regulatory process or uncertainty, that regulatory process was put in place by Bill C-38 in the spring of 2012, when, for the first time, the National Energy Board started doing environmental reviews. It is unsuited for it. There has been more uncertainty and more confusion and there are more court cases because of the shemozzle of reviews we have had post the previous prime minister. Mr. Harper's approach to reviews, which was to fast-track approvals, had the opposite effect.

Meanwhile, there is a glut of pipelines. As Professor Leach pointed out, when Trump approved Keystone, the same producer had a problem. It could not find enough long-term contracts from suppliers who were willing to convey their product through the pipeline to justify it. It was the better business decision to kill energy east in order to line up long-term contracts for Keystone, which is more advantageous to that industry. We can twist ourselves into all kinds of knots to say that it was someone's political fault. However, this was a business decision based on a low price globally for oil, retreating investments in the oil sands, and so many pipelines approved that there is a glut.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the leader of the Green Party wants to take the word of academics who have made that argument. I will take the word of former energy east executives, who say that it was the government that killed that project. It was the government, by restarting the hearing process unnecessarily, that killed the project. It was the government, which made the pipeline responsible for calculating how many upstream and downstream greenhouse gas emissions would be created by the product that flowed through that pipe. Suddenly that was the responsibility of the pipeline company. That has never been done before. We cannot blame that on the previous government, as much as I know that the member likes to lay most of the problems of this country at the feet of that government. We will take the word of energy east executives, who said that it was the regulatory process by the government that created that uncertainty.

I talked about the northern gateway pipeline. What impact do you think it has on investor confidence when a pipeline that has been approved, subject to 209 stringent environmental conditions, is simply cancelled by a subsequent government for no reason whatsoever other than political whim? What do you think that does to investor confidence when they say that they can spend $750 to $800 million to get a project approved and it cannot even be built, because it is arbitrarily killed by an ideological government that is opposed to a pipeline that goes through a forest they like? It kills investor confidence, and that is what the government has done all across the energy sector from coast to coast.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his motion. As democrats, we are certainly always pleased when consultations are held. However, the ongoing challenge with consultations, especially with this government and its approach, is knowing where to draw the line, since excessive consultations prevent us from making progress on extremely important files.

It is all very well to boast about how much was said in committee. However, all these fine exercises in democracy must produce results.

That is why we always support giving a committee the opportunity to travel, especially with respect to an issue that mainly affects Canada's west coast. We know that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley in particular and the other members from B.C. have been working on this file for quite some time. With that in mind, we find it difficult to agree to a 45-day consultation period, since that seems rather excessive. Once again, we must strike a balance between holding consultations and taking concrete legislative action.

More particularly, and I know that my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley would certainly emphasize the importance of this, there are three communities in particular that New Democrats would like to see visited as part of this tour, which we support in principle, although it is too long. In particular, we believe that the committee should visit Kitimat, Haida Gwaii, and Smithers to hear what people on the ground are saying.

Consultation is important, but at the same time, the bill is also extremely important, and 45 days seems like too long a holdup.

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about the national unity dimension of the whole discussion around pipelines, because some of this has come out recently. It is my belief that we should be able to have these kinds of debates without the Prime Minister, for instance, saying that we should not have this debate for fear of a negative impact on national unity.

We should be able to have this conversation and debate and present different points of view. Most Canadians I talk to are united in believing that development should be able to go forward. Maybe the NDP and the government have a different perspective on it, but certainly we should be able to have debates on Bill C-48, the importance of pipelines, and these sorts of things in the House without raising the spectre of negative impacts on national unity.

If there is anything negatively impacting national unity, frankly, it is the unfair policies of the government toward the west. I wonder if the member would agree with me on that.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not agree with the Liberal government that we need to pit one region against another.

That said, we also believe in sustainable development. However, when it comes to such matters, it is not enough to believe in sustainable development. We also have to seek to obtain social licence. That is something the previous government did not manage to do, and the current government has not been very successful in this regard either, even though it talks a lot about consultation.

Nevertheless, we have to move forward, and I would like to reiterate for my colleague that consultations should not be used as PR opportunities. The government cannot keep paying lip service and making promises. It must also take action. That is why we think that, although it is important to consult and listen to communities, especially the ones I mentioned, it is also important to move forward with a bill based on the important work that has been done, not just by government members, but also by members on our side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we hear the term social licence from a few different places. I want to pick up on that a bit, because the challenge with a term like social licence is that it can always be a moving target. We might say one needs to obtain social licence, yet that seems to be an excuse that is continually used to push the discussion further without ever actually coming to a definitive conclusion.

Any process needs to have a mechanism in place for evaluating the evidence, for weighing the feedback, and ultimately, for making a decision. We hear New Democratic and Liberal politicians, here and in Alberta as well, say that they just have to wait until they get social licence. However, in effect, what that leads to is projects being killed.

If the member is so convinced of the importance of social licence, which to me seems an ethereal concept, I wonder if he could actually define it. I wonder if he could actually tell me what achieving social licence on a project would look like. Clearly, it is not unanimity, because we are never going to have unanimity on any policy, no matter how demonstrably beneficial it is. What would achieving social licence, and therefore getting to a yes, actually look like, in the member's view?

Mr. Speaker, I have a great example of social licence for my colleague.

It is easy to say that we are striving for unanimity, but what people really want is respect. Take for example reconciliation with first nations. That involves understanding their role in the process, which is something the previous government, the Conservative government, did not do. The fact that first nations have to hold protests because they feel as though their rights are being violated during the planning and implementation phases of these projects is a good example of what social licence is all about.

Social licence is not about saying we need 100% approval when 99% of the people are in favour of something and only one person is unhappy about it. It is about truly recognizing that a nation-to-nation-to-nation dialogue has to happen respectfully with an understanding that first nations play an important part in the process. That aspect has been glossed over for too long, and we are looking to finally make some progress on that front. Obtaining social licence is not something politicians should be able to use as an excuse; we should use it to ensure we are doing the best work we can and moving forward in a way that respects everyone.

The member spoke about unity and not pitting one region or group against another. The perfect way to achieve that is by ensuring respect for indigenous peoples during this process. Again, that is something that has not been done to date.

Transport, Infrastructure and CommunitiesCommittees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North
Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I always find these types of debates interesting when we compare the contrast inside the House. On the one side, we have the Conservatives, who like to think that they actually made progress on the issue of pipelines. However, we all know that we saw zero inches built in the last 10 years by Stephen Harper that went to tidewater. That is not a very good success rate. We have the New Democrats, who really oppose any form of pipeline.

However, one thing we all share, or at least should, is the understanding that Canadians desire that a moratorium be put in place that will take into consideration the importance of our oceans, in particular out in B.C. I am wondering if my colleague across the way can add his thoughts on the importance of a moratorium in terms of responding to something Canadians want to see.

Mr. Speaker, this is once again the Liberals' Goldilocks approach. They feel that because they are being attacked from all sides, they must be doing something right. The reality is that they are being attacked from all sides because they are doing nothing right. The current government has Stephen Harper's greenhouse gas emissions targets, which it will not even meet and which are a far cry from addressing climate change. We have an environmental assessment process that it promised to fix, which was already broken before the Conservatives completely dismantled it, and the Liberals have still has not fixed that. It did not re-evaluate the projects that were on the table using a fixed process that was never actually fixed.

When I hear the member say that they are doing a bit of this and a bit of that, it is just a lot of nothing. The fact of the matter is that the Liberals can say all the great things they want, and they can consult and consult. As New Democrats, we will always support consultation. However, we also want to see action, and that is certainly not what we have seen from the current government when it comes to sustainable development, tackling climate change, and standing up for the workers whose jobs are on the line.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate going back and forth. We have heard Conservative MPs, and now Liberal MPs, responding and going back and forth about the nature of consultation. I will remind members and those listening that in the past government, the Conservative approach was to create division and to radicalize those who stood up for the environment, the ocean, and the well-being of salmon and watersheds. In fact, we recently heard the current Minister of Natural Resources talking about the need to bring in the army if necessary on energy pipeline projects.

While we talk about consultation and we talk about a nation-to-nation relationship and true reconciliation, we have to take a serious look at how we do this process. We cannot rely on a window-dressing consultation or just listening and checking off boxes. We actually have to engage with others in this process, whether that be first nations, the provinces, communities, or others. It is a difficult process. We definitely want to protect the environment and those things we value truly. We want to have resources we can use in our communities and that power our local economies. It is a tough road forward as we realize that we are absolutely changing our climate.

I would ask if the hon. colleague could comment on the need for consultation but also the need for action.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his interesting question. It reminds me of what we saw with the Conservative government's Bill C-51 and what we are still seeing with Bill C-59. Bill C-59 is supposedly going to repair the damage caused by Bill C-51, which jeopardizes the right of activists to protest for the environment.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is currently in court because the CSIS watchdog refuses to release documents that would show whether these people were spied on. This is sowing division and keeping people from speaking out and making sure the country and the government are on the right track with regard to the environment and sustainable development. We find that unacceptable.